http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23673834-2702,00.html
I am anticipating a removal of the general CGT discount.
I am anticipating a removal of the general CGT discount.
Expect Pain on Tuesday
- Thread starter coastymike
- Start date
There's not a lot of true "investment" happening anyway - people are speculating on existing homes. So I don't think it will have much of an impact except to make speculators think a little more long term about what they are doing. This can't be a bad thing.
Lyn,
I think they may remove the CGT discount across all asset classes, not just property. It served it's purpose which was to divert income into property and shares and hold them long term.
Interesting point re the main residence exemption. A lot of wealthy people have diverted income into their main residences as a sort of "tax break". Hmmm will be interesting.
Will be an interesting budget but I am sure there are a lot of surprises in store.
I think they may remove the CGT discount across all asset classes, not just property. It served it's purpose which was to divert income into property and shares and hold them long term.
Interesting point re the main residence exemption. A lot of wealthy people have diverted income into their main residences as a sort of "tax break". Hmmm will be interesting.
Will be an interesting budget but I am sure there are a lot of surprises in store.
that's just speculation.
what about the baby bonus for high income earners? that'll go first.
maybe the 30% concession for private health care as well.
to pull any kind of incentive out of the residential market is like playing russian roulette with 5 bullets.
what about the baby bonus for high income earners? that'll go first.
maybe the 30% concession for private health care as well.
to pull any kind of incentive out of the residential market is like playing russian roulette with 5 bullets.
Agreed Blue it is just speculation but as the article states "Two-thirds of this forgone revenue covers perks for superannuation and the capital gains tax discount."
I agree first to go is the baby bonus for high income earners. But 8 Billion is a lot of money to go in benefits. Interested to see what concessions are going for superannuation. Maybe the tax free status for over 60 year olds will be back to a low range like 10% (same as the GST rate) ? Anyway quite excited to see our Tuesday budget.
I agree first to go is the baby bonus for high income earners. But 8 Billion is a lot of money to go in benefits. Interested to see what concessions are going for superannuation. Maybe the tax free status for over 60 year olds will be back to a low range like 10% (same as the GST rate) ? Anyway quite excited to see our Tuesday budget.
I agree there's a strong probability they're going to can it.
Though would presume they won't be dumb enough to take it away in one hit....maybe stage it down.
Adverse repercussions could be a profound reduction in building activity, thus triggering a sharper slowing of the domestic economy, which leads to a spiral of ever decreasing demand, deflation, and eventually a deeper recession than otherwise. Then they'd have to loosen things again to get the economy boosted.
Will be interesting to see how much canning the cgt concession hits property values. New loan approvals to investors have dropped heavily in the last 6 months anyway.
One thing is for sure, rents are going to the moon, along with petrol.
Ah tinker, tinker, tinker...
Always gotta get a level playing field. Why???
Are we a socialist welfare state, or a capitalist democracy.
Investors are people who think longterm. In general they earn no more than the next person, yet they forgo something today to ensure they have a better future than the Mr & Mrs Average.
In doing this they ensure that they will not be a drain on society today, or in the future.
Rather than seeing a pot of gold ready for redistibution, the government should be working to protect and nuture this behaviour.
Is it a level playing field when you start the game, and then halfway through change the rules? Such as introducing retrospective tax laws.
Yes, I'm ranting but is it really that difficult to ensure everyone no matter their station pays their fair share of tax?
The tax system appears to me to be much more complicated than it needs to be.
And why is this?
Because like all laws, which are initial very simple. Do unto others as you would want done unto you. The taxes have grown in their complexity, due to a never ending need to take into consideration all possible interpretations, remove loopholes as they become apparent and from time to time stimulate
or if the need arose stiffle spending in certain areas.
If they want a level playing field why not remove all tax incentives, but at the same time remove all tax disincentives. No CGT, no fuel excise, no land tax, no stamp duty, no negative gearing, no baby bonus (do we need quantity or quality citizens?)
A single Federal tax rate when you spend your money. States will be allocated funds according to the tax they collect, in line with their mantra of user pays.
If people are unable to support themselves provide for them, however if they can but choose not to then that is their choice and I see no reason why other hardworking citizens should support them.
If you spend alot you pay alot, if you spend a little you pay a little. Whether it be a loaf of bread, shares, or property the tax rate is the same.
Would that not be a level playing field?
Regards
Andrew
Always gotta get a level playing field. Why???
Are we a socialist welfare state, or a capitalist democracy.
Investors are people who think longterm. In general they earn no more than the next person, yet they forgo something today to ensure they have a better future than the Mr & Mrs Average.
In doing this they ensure that they will not be a drain on society today, or in the future.
Rather than seeing a pot of gold ready for redistibution, the government should be working to protect and nuture this behaviour.
Is it a level playing field when you start the game, and then halfway through change the rules? Such as introducing retrospective tax laws.
Yes, I'm ranting but is it really that difficult to ensure everyone no matter their station pays their fair share of tax?
The tax system appears to me to be much more complicated than it needs to be.
And why is this?
Because like all laws, which are initial very simple. Do unto others as you would want done unto you. The taxes have grown in their complexity, due to a never ending need to take into consideration all possible interpretations, remove loopholes as they become apparent and from time to time stimulate
or if the need arose stiffle spending in certain areas.
If they want a level playing field why not remove all tax incentives, but at the same time remove all tax disincentives. No CGT, no fuel excise, no land tax, no stamp duty, no negative gearing, no baby bonus (do we need quantity or quality citizens?)
A single Federal tax rate when you spend your money. States will be allocated funds according to the tax they collect, in line with their mantra of user pays.
If people are unable to support themselves provide for them, however if they can but choose not to then that is their choice and I see no reason why other hardworking citizens should support them.
If you spend alot you pay alot, if you spend a little you pay a little. Whether it be a loaf of bread, shares, or property the tax rate is the same.
Would that not be a level playing field?
Regards
Andrew
A Liberal government no. But a Labour government heavily in favour of giving out welfare to it's so called 'working families' yes. Kevin 07 and his party see themselves as 'squaring things up' - a little like Robin Hood. Taking from the so called 'rich' and giving to the 'Aussie Battlers'.
I'd say they are well on the way to stuffing up the economy. Inflation is totally out of control. Time for another Paul Keating type of 'recession we had to have'.
Recessions occur when Labour is in power. I'm sure Howard is sitting back with a big smile on his dial........
I'm just wondering... when the government took away the Negative gearing tax advantages last time, how long was it before they brought it back? 6 months... a year.
Does anyone know??
My understanding is they only removed it from new purchases. Taxpayers with existing neg-geared IPs were allowed to continue. Not 100% sure, but that's my recollection.
LL
Thanks "for the memory" LynnH ... I bet there were some very "interesting" tax-returns AND refunds that year !! Maybe even a party or three
...
LL
...LL
You're right, LL. And when negative gearing was 'un-quarantined' (if that's the opposite of 'quarantined'
Cheers
LynnH
Thanks for all that info...
I'm very new to IP so that was something I had heard about but didn't know the story behind it.
So for those 2 years I guess there were not many "Newbie" investors getting into property... there was no tax incentive to do it...
I bet the government was not happy that year...
It really bugs me when I read this on the news.com.au
Two-thirds of this forgone revenue covers perks for superannuation and the capital gains tax discount
http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0,23636,23674774-462,00.html
When the CGT was introduced in 1985, it was a new tax on top of every other tax. And there was always the provision for some kind of relief, initially from inflation (until 1999?) and then from long term (>12 months) holding. But now, these provisions are deemed 'a perk'
And Super - the purpose of Super is so that Government no longer has to pay an aged pension to retired people. We shouldn't have to pay any tax on it at all because it eats into our retirement money and we are forced to have the 9% contribution put into super so it can't be accessed; but now, the favourable tax treatment is seen as 'a perk' Double
Two-thirds of this forgone revenue covers perks for superannuation and the capital gains tax discount
http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0,23636,23674774-462,00.html
When the CGT was introduced in 1985, it was a new tax on top of every other tax. And there was always the provision for some kind of relief, initially from inflation (until 1999?) and then from long term (>12 months) holding. But now, these provisions are deemed 'a perk'
And Super - the purpose of Super is so that Government no longer has to pay an aged pension to retired people. We shouldn't have to pay any tax on it at all because it eats into our retirement money and we are forced to have the 9% contribution put into super so it can't be accessed; but now, the favourable tax treatment is seen as 'a perk' Double
